tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
I anticipate some pretty extreme responses to your OP, Tweak. You give us such deliciously widely opposing options.
The harsh version, imo, lacks due process provisions. Anyone who goes overseas is suddenly a target by the govt. Assuming that means if they journey say to Pakistan, but not Scotland. Sounds a bit similar to Trump's selection of seven nations from which refugees are barred. Furthermore, given the ubiquitous internet, there is not reason to discount the budding stay-at-home Jihadist to suddenly emerge with a suicide bomb vest rapped around his chest. So, I ask you, is your govt spending money worrying about travelers and ignoring the children who have been radicalized through their computer, and how do you tell? Do you place an NSA listening device on every Muslim child's computer and mobile phone?
The soft alternative also suffers from a similar problem of identifying the potential jihadists. Do the authorities make an announcement for every distressed Muslim child to come down to city hall for some ice cream?
Both approaches seem unsuitable to solve the problem.
Firstly, as well as the iron fist approach, the Govt here operates intervention programs involving the Muslim community aimed at preventing radicalisation. Not much detail is known publicly about these programs. What I do know is that Muslin clerics are involved, presumably to contest the jihadi interpretation of the Koran.
There is also a 'hotline' where members of the public can dob in a radical or someone they suspect of being a radical. The Govt tells us that this line is commonly employed by a potential radical's family who want to prevent their family member from getting sucked into the jihadi trap. As far as I know there are no data on the success or failure of either of these initiatives available to the public. This lack of publicly available data and information is a feature of all aspects of the Australian response to this threat.
When all of the above hasn't worked, and someone is suspected of travelling overseas intending to fight with the jihadis, they are stopped at the airport (there is a watchlist) and their passport is cancelled. This power was taken by the Govt as part of a so-called anti-terrorist legislative package that intruded on many basic rights Australians enjoy - like the Patriot Act but worse. Personally I would prefer to let them go, cancel their passports and citizenship and let them take their chances.
One downside of keeping them in the country is that they are able to carry out terrorist acts here, despite the heavy surveillance they are subject to. There has been a few attacks involving youths (who in theory should have be identified and placed in the deradicalisation program) as young as 15 and 17. They have resulted in a tiny number of fatalities. So whether they were part of the program or not, it can be said that the program either failed to identify them as potential radicals or, if they were identified, failed to change their radical views.
Some people in the security services have stated that they consider there to be about 500 people in the country with radical views. There's possibly 30 or so in prison for their parts in various 'plots' some of whom were convicted on very flimsy evidence, others seemed intent on carrying out very nasty actions.
The lack of public information and oversight of these policies is a matter of concern, but there is no political will on either side to change this, lest they be seen as "weak on terrorism'. These policies enjoy bi-partisan support. Australians IMHO view these policies with their characteristic apathy.
I hope this info helps
_____________________________
|
RE: Hug a Jihadi - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread